My cop friends say there was nothing that could have been done without violating civil liberties.

It's cut and dry people.

Why must we play the blame game constantly? It accomplishes nothing.

Public threats from a known possessor of firearms isnt grounds for police action??? This isnt a threat he muttered under his breath, he stupidly broadcast it out. Black rappers BSing about crime in song have had that shit brought up in court as evidence. On top he had a history of issues and was reported to the police by a specialist. Seems worth looking at some vids?

If you look at the videos aside from his final "retribution video" which both the police and Youtube have said was not posted at the time the police visited him, there's little indication there of any threat.

He's a weird dude, and I would agree that the police should have watched the videos, but there was a bit of a disconnect here in the communication.

The therapist called the family and the family called the police, so unfortunately there was not a moment where a mental health care professional talked to the police, and that may have been a factor in not convincing them to take the kid in for a temporary hold and evaluation.

There are areas where civil liberties often conflict. For example, most schizophrenics that go off their medicine while in outpatient or not under active medical supervision are not required to take them, and aren't able to be incarcerated or otherwise detained when they go off, yet we know historically that schizophrenic people need the medicine to interact well with the society in general.

I've watched the videos in the proper context and there are no direct threats. There's just a whole lot of anti jock and anti women anger.

If someone can point me realistically towards one of these videos which would have permitted the police to detain him and also to search his property, which would require a warrant, I would be grateful.

Do you not see a parallel between using rap lyrics as evidence against someone's character and holding a person that already had an issue with the police AND was a registered firearm owner AND was making violent public diatribes? Seems like something worth putting an hour into?

I am aware almost regardless of actual actions police get heavily scrutinized over high profile shit like this, but they did skip some steps that might have helped. The police over here can generally be mentally brutal during questioning, including outright lies, but someone like him I see having a nervous collapse pretty quickly in a thorough interrogation about his 'vids'. I live in Canada though, so our system is different, but i know accused minorities plead guilty some really stupid shit in the US.

Just curious, but fo you think itd be legal for him to shout his stuff on a street corner? Lots of hate groups have public rallies, but i could see his getting shut down.

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2416Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 6:17 pm Post subject:

OklahomanSun wrote:

If someone can point me realistically towards one of these videos which would have permitted the police to detain him and also to search his property, which would require a warrant, I would be grateful.

To clarify, police don't need a warrant to conduct a search when performing a wellness check. If they determine, with probable cause, that the person they're checking on is a threat to himself or others, it becomes an exigent circumstance allowing for an immediate search of the premises.

But the only video I can point to that would likely have given the officers probable cause is his final one, which was not available when the police visited him.

If someone can point me realistically towards one of these videos which would have permitted the police to detain him and also to search his property, which would require a warrant, I would be grateful.

To clarify, police don't need a warrant to conduct a search when performing a wellness check. If they determine, with probable cause, that the person they're checking on is a threat to himself or others, it becomes an exigent circumstance allowing for an immediate search of the premises.

But the only video I can point to that would likely have given the officers probable cause is his final one, which was not available when the police visited him.

it is inconceivable to me that the therapist did not directly report this (if they didn't) if they had watched the videos.

In mental health there are generally either one or two requirements: duty to warn or duty to protect. The difference is that under duty to protect if, in the opinion of the provider, an alternative to warning a person of a credible threat is equally or more protective than warning them then they are exempt from liability unless their alternate plan is found to be negligent. The rationale here is that warning may cause the patient to stop attending therapy, where continued therapy may prevent harm to the identified victim and possibly others (which is kind of flimsy IMNSHO). California was the flagship of duty to warn, but in 2007 (and reiterated in 2013) it was made duty to protect. So, a therapist isn't required to warn a potential victim, but they are required to act on credible threats in such a way as to protect the identified victim. Because this may include warning, they're generally protected from liability if they decide to warn.

Duty to warn requires only that you warn the potential victim, someone likely to inform the victim (e.g., parents), the police, or some combination of these. So, by choosing to warn the parents, the therapist has met the legal obligation... it's hard to know how explicit this guy was with his therapist, but if he indicated he planned to go on a shooting spree I can't imagine not informing the police._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

If someone can point me realistically towards one of these videos which would have permitted the police to detain him and also to search his property, which would require a warrant, I would be grateful.

To clarify, police don't need a warrant to conduct a search when performing a wellness check. If they determine, with probable cause, that the person they're checking on is a threat to himself or others, it becomes an exigent circumstance allowing for an immediate search of the premises.

But the only video I can point to that would likely have given the officers probable cause is his final one, which was not available when the police visited him.

If someone can point me realistically towards one of these videos which would have permitted the police to detain him and also to search his property, which would require a warrant, I would be grateful.

To clarify, police don't need a warrant to conduct a search when performing a wellness check. If they determine, with probable cause, that the person they're checking on is a threat to himself or others, it becomes an exigent circumstance allowing for an immediate search of the premises.

But the only video I can point to that would likely have given the officers probable cause is his final one, which was not available when the police visited him.

Except that half of them read like a suicide note.

Boy you sure do have problems admitting that you're wrong.

Not really, just when a liar like you references his "cop friends" to score points in an internet debate. Your posts are untrustworthy, oklahomasun's are only slightly less so._________________

If someone can point me realistically towards one of these videos which would have permitted the police to detain him and also to search his property, which would require a warrant, I would be grateful.

To clarify, police don't need a warrant to conduct a search when performing a wellness check. If they determine, with probable cause, that the person they're checking on is a threat to himself or others, it becomes an exigent circumstance allowing for an immediate search of the premises.

But the only video I can point to that would likely have given the officers probable cause is his final one, which was not available when the police visited him.

Except that half of them read like a suicide note.

Boy you sure do have problems admitting that you're wrong.

Not really, just when a liar like you references his "cop friends" to score points in an internet debate. Your posts are untrustworthy, oklahomasun's are only slightly less so.

That's not true at all monkey.

If anything, I may be the most trustworthy person here.

Why? Because you can always count on me to speak my mind about how I feel about any issue regardless of political correctness.

You know very well that I am not afraid to offend or criticize anyone, including myself, and that I stick to my great resolve.

Admittedly, this has made a very polarizing figure, and some people can't handle that.